Talk:Prime Minister of Ukraine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ukraine Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Is Yushchenko actually Prime Minister, or acting Prime Minister? I haven't seen any news that says other than Yanukovych quit. —Michael Z. 17:52, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

I don't know who wrote this, but if you ask me, it's utter nonsense! I've checked several sources, and nowhere it was mentioned that Yushchenko is prime minister at the moment, acting or not. Indeed, Yanukovych officially resigned on Dec. 31. My guess is that vice-premier Mykola Azarov is probably fulfilling the role of acting prime minister once again, a role he also played between Dec. 7 and Dec. 28. IJzeren Jan 19:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC).


No need to title the list "and acting Prime Minister"; it can be concise and self-explanatory. Haven't most of them been effectively "acting" until their appointment was ratified? —Michael Z. 2005-02-4 17:06 Z

No, this is not the case. Most acting PMs were specifically appointed after the previous PM resigned and most acting PMs never became actual PMs Sashazlv 04:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not referring to the ones marked "acting" at the moment, but Tymoshenko appeared on the table in two entries, as Acting PM before her appointment's ratification, and as PM after that. Wouldn't most of the PMs be first appointed, then ratified by the Rada? I'm just saying that none of these should be listed twice, so I changed Tymoshenko to one entry, with the ratification date. Also shortened the redundant section heading. —Michael Z. 2005-02-5 15:04 Z

Not exactly so. By precedent, the consecutive order is: (1) for the President to name a candidate, (2) for the Rada to grant assent for appointment, (3) for the President to appoint the candidate.

Step (1) is accomplished by sending an official letter from the President to the Speaker. Step (2) is regulated by the parliamentary act N 287/96-ВР, dated July 10, 1996. [1]. Step (3) is accomplished by a presidential appointment edict.

Both Kuchma and Yushchenko followed the procedure. Incidentally, official translation of the Constitution gives the term: the Verkhovna Rada gives consent to the appointment of the Prime Minister. I don't know why someone changed the correct term to ... ratifies .... Ratifies may be understood as confirms or appoints. Presently, it is the President who appoints and unilaterally dismisses the Prime Minister. Besides, ratification is more commonly applied in the context of international treaty ratifications. So, I think that gives consent to the appointment is much less ambiguous.

Interestingly, Tymoshenko is the only PM who was acting PM before the official appointment. In my opinion, in appointing her as acting PM on January 23rd, President Yushchenko did not exactly follow part 5 of Article 115 of the Constitution. However, the Constitution says nothing about acting PMs and the Constitutional Court is unlikely to interpret the Constituion in this case.

Sashazlv 00:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the patient explanation. So then Tymoshenko was appointed acting PM on 01-24, and on 02-04 she was appointed PM along with the Rada's consent, right? In that case perhaps I should have left her brief tenure as acting PM as a separate item on the list. —Michael Z. 2005-02-6 00:17 Z

PS: it just occurred to me to wonder whether rada comes from the same Latin root as ratify.

Regarding Tymoshenko -- yes, that's the case, but, frankly speaking, the Constitution does not give the President the right to appoint acting PM or any acting member of the Cabinet. This is rather done by precedent, since in Kravchuk's times the President was the head of the executive branch.

Rada. Merriam-Webster also says it may be related to a Gothic verb. It may be interesting to see whether there is something in Sanskrit. At this point, etymology is a bit clouded.

I am currently thinking how to reorganize the list to account for in office terms and acting terms. Maybe, it would be better to keep people who were only acting PMs: Symonenko, Durdynets, and Azarov in a separate list or in a footnote.

Sashazlv 01:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prime Ministers of Ukraine

Feel free to improve the table. Sashazlv 19:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Last Name, First Name Dates of Acting
Before Ratification		 Dates in Office Dates of Acting
After Resignation		 Details on Appointment,
Tenure, and Resignation
Masol,Vitaliy – June 28, 1990 –
October 17, 1990		 October 17, 1990 –
October 23, 1990		 Resigned as a result of
student protests in Kyiv
Fokin, Vitold October 23, 1990 –
November 14, 1990		 November 14, 1990 –
October 1, 1992		 – Resigned as a result of
retirement
Kuchma,Leonid – October 13, 1992 –
September 22, 1993		 – –
Zvyahilskyy, Yukhym – September 22, 1993 –
June 16, 1994		 – –
Masol,Vitaliy – June 16, 1994 –
March 1, 1995		 – –
Marchuk, Yevhen – March 1, 1995 –
May 28, 1996		 – –
Lazarenko, Pavlo – May 28, 1996 –
July 2, 1997		 – –
Pustovoytenko Valeriy – July 16, 1997 –
December 22, 1999		 – –
Yushchenko, Viktor – December 22, 1999 –
April 26, 2001		 April 28, 2001 –
May 29, 2001		 –
Kinakh, Anatoliy – May 29, 2001 –
November 21, 2002		 – –
Yanukovych Viktor – November 21, 2002 –
December 7, 2004
December 28, 2004 –
January 5, 2005		 – on leave:
December 7, 2004 –
December 27, 2004
Tymoshenko, Yuliya January 24, 2005 –
February 4, 2005		 February 4, 2005 –
NA		 NA –


I've reinstated the table, with naming changes. Would you mind if we removed the serving after and before confirmation columns - they make the table unsightly, and don't seem to add much information? Ambi 01:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am not particularly fond of having 3 columns instead of one with dates. However, there was some misunderstanding about Tymoshenko's tenure (you can see questions and answers above). Presently, I see no better way, but to keep the three columns. Maybe, someone comes up with a more appealing solution. The bottom line is that if the choice is between ugly and ambiguous, I would vote for ugly.
Incidentally, you can see that sometimes acting terms can be rather long (e.g., one month for Yushchenko). Legal maximum is 60 days. I have tried to correct the most important dates, but it is a very tedious job and I am not yet done. Sashazlv 06:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is this information important, though? Most, if not all, of the other Prime Minister/President articles just list the dates they were in office. There may be other alternatives, too - perhaps (Date, Year - Date, Year (acting until Date)). Ambi 06:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If we strive for perfection, why should we follow bad examples? Sashazlv 02:13, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)